Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hello, I am against fire arms.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
Well, the first point to make is the 2nd Amendment itself is unambiguous, so there's little room for caveats. This means, to ban firearms outright, the Constitution would have to be changed or ammended, but I'm sure there's an ammendment against that also, as a 'safeguard' against rights being revoked. If the 2nd Amendment was altered or revoked for whatever reason, you have a dangerous precedent right off the bat.

So, the ownership and carrying of firearms might have been relevant some 200 years ago, but not today? Don't be so sure - conditions change. It might become highly relevant yet again at some point, if the country somehow finds itself at risk of becoming a dictatorship or another third-world country.

The final point is it wouldn't change a lot, if you wanted to control/ban firearms for the sake of making streets safer. In fact, the situation could be made far worse. The social problems themselves that lead to crime would still remain, and the 'bad actors' would simply resort to using other objects (knives, bottles, pint glasses, Uncle Stanley, etc. etc.) as weapons.
edit on 29-9-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


Right, right and right.

Let me add (to the bolded statement) that in most cases, the criminals would remain having firearms while law abiding citizens would not. You in essence give the proverbial upper hand to the criminals.

Just look at violent crime rates in Chicago and D.C., the two cities (DC is changing mind you) with the most strictest of gun laws.

And also, don't forget the famous quote from Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."


edit on 10/1/2012 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed quote




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 
Ummmm.........Wow, can I come live there?.......Just kidding, (maybe) I like it here, I just dont care for all the registration and other regulatory crap here.....

YouSir


We have to get a Handgun Permit which is $100...the SOB's! You can also get an FID I am not sure how much that costs as my Handgun Permit covers all weapons as long as they are not full auto.

People are VERY NICE HERE! Maybe because we are ALL ARMED! LOL! But seriously...I have several Convertibles and when I drive around the area I never put up the top. I leave my doors unlocked. My Neighbor owns Hundreds of Acres of Land and we have a really nice range we built.

There really is almost zero crime and this is true with all HIGHLY ARMED COMMUNITIES! They keep on doing studies to try to link Weapons that are legally owned with High Crime but it is the complete opposite. LOL!
Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Sarah Brady



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparky31

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
reply to post by sparky31
 

I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand your post.
Please forgive me if English is not your primary language.






to u its not but least i can walk anywhere in my country and getting shot wudn,t even cross my mind.....bear
arms?no license to open fire on who u want is what it seems like


Really, I challenge you to take an evening walk in one of the many Muslim enclaves that exist in you wonderful country. Odds are that you wouldn't last 5 minutes. You may not be shot but being gutted with a knife has the same results.
Learn to spell and communicate properly and then maybe someone will take you seriously.
In the movie "Quigley down under" Quigley told a British solder that in America we got rid of all the troublemakers in our country, we sent them back to England.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by phcaan
 


I agree, more reasons to be armed to the teeth, our great US is full of those Muslim enclaves that are a danger to us constitutional law abiding citizens, many here have no clue how our own laws protect this Sharia and fundamentalist radical practicing places, actually by law they have no place in the US, but our own government and local police ignore them.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamLaw

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”(Constitution of the United States Of America, 2nd Amendment)

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?


Absolutely. Since the nation is comprised of the citizens, and could not exist without them, protection of the citizens is the paramount consideration in the protection of the state. At the time of the Revolutionary War, the British Empire, of which the colonies were a part, was ALSO the most militarized political entity in the world. The colonists had need to defend themselves against precisely that militarization. Sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.



Proponents of the individualistic interpretation hold especially the second part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


According to the SCOTUS decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, the second part specified here is the operative clause, and the first part, not specified here, is merely an introductory clause providing a potential justification, but not limiting potential justifications to only that purpose. For that reason, the phrase "necessary to the security of a free state" is NOT a limitation prohibiting resistance against a tyrannical government. The framers had just emerged from exactly that sort of contest, and are highly unlikely to have prohibited that use from their progeny.



Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?

United States v. Miller 1939, the supreme Court took a position that could not be more ambiguous. If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.


The question of using sawed off shotguns in the military does not have bearing on the question of whether it specifies a collective or individual right. Since US vs. Miller WAS ambiguous, Heller v. DC clarified that point. Interestingly, perhaps, US v. Miller COULD be used to justify the possession of automatic weapons, mortars, tanks and the like by private citizens, since they are used by the military. Are you quite sure you want to use US v. Miller in this discussion?



Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?


See above. If you want to use US v. Miller, The case could be strongly made.



Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?


No. Simple revocation is not how this system works. You can't just "revoke" a Constitutional provision. Furthermore, revoking the right to keep and bear arms will not prevent crime any more than revoking the right to posess spoons and forks will prevent eating, or revoking pens will prevent communication.



The application of the Brady bill, the public outcry against the Columbine tragedy and mourning collective orchestrated by the media that ensued had some commentators suggest that in this struggle between the individual rights and public health, that the NRA had lost ground. In fact, nothing is less certain. Because if the NRA has never changed his creed, supporters of arms control had gradually reduce their claims to be closer to the point where the polls are the political center of gravity. The sympathy that each side can expect from the opinion may be eventually changed, but there is no evidence that the measures that will result will have the expected impact on gun violence.


I support the right to keep and bear arms. I do NOT support the NRA. They've done more harm to that cause than good. In your final sentence here, the phrase "gun violence" irks me. Why set a particular sort of violence aside as special? is not ALL violence a bad thing? Where is the outcry against "knife violence", "claw hammer violence", "tire iron violence", etc?



I am Glad to join the ATS family.


Welcome! Beer is in the fridge - help yourself!


edit on 2012/10/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If the OP is attempting to sound like John Q Public, he/she fails in miserable fashion. You just joined ATS and upon browsing the site you found gun control to pique your interest in joining. A word springs to mind; shill. Maybe paid. Maybe just a lapdog.

President Obama to the UN regarding the Arms Treaty not being signed by the US: "We need more time."

Yes, they need more time to create a psychology in the US that fully backs the confiscation of guns and denies ownership. They trot people exactly like you all over the internet, mainstream media and other avenues of propaganda to create that necessary psychology. With the psychotic powers that be running things, you'll never, in a million years, convince me that gun control is necessary or even desirable. If there were any time in history where a well armed populace was needed in the United States, it sure as hell is this time in history. You want to know how well gun control works in the US? Just ask me, I'm a Chicagoan.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by InfiniteConsciousness
 


Good point, perhaps is the fact that Obama knows that no law abiding citizens that cherish their constitutional rights will be stupid enough to give away any of their rights, specially free speech and rights to arms, because US created and supported UN wants to disarm.




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by phcaan

Originally posted by sparky31

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
reply to post by sparky31
 

I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand your post.
Please forgive me if English is not your primary language.






to u its not but least i can walk anywhere in my country and getting shot wudn,t even cross my mind.....bear
arms?no license to open fire on who u want is what it seems like


Really, I challenge you to take an evening walk in one of the many Muslim enclaves that exist in you wonderful country. Odds are that you wouldn't last 5 minutes. You may not be shot but being gutted with a knife has the same results.
Learn to spell and communicate properly and then maybe someone will take you seriously.
In the movie "Quigley down under" Quigley told a British solder that in America we got rid of all the troublemakers in our country, we sent them back to England.


Your knowledge of the UK is on a par with this guys grasp of the English language.

There are no 'enclaves' in his country, Muslim or otherwise.

I guess this is a debate for American's only as it seems to be an extremely contentious issue. I do wonder however why more pro-gun/2nd amendment American citizens do not aspire to have a country where there isn't a need to defend oneself?

Good luck.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey

Your knowledge of the UK is on a par with this guys grasp of the English language.

There are no 'enclaves' in his country, Muslim or otherwise.

I guess this is a debate for American's only as it seems to be an extremely contentious issue. I do wonder however why more pro-gun/2nd amendment American citizens do not aspire to have a country where there isn't a need to defend oneself?

Good luck.


what makes you think those who "support" the second amendment "do not aspire to have a country where there isn't a need to defend oneself?" is it because they aren't willing to give up their firearms to do it? i can tell you right now per capita US has lower crime rates overall than most any country without civilian firearm ownership. And oft it is the states with heavy firearm regulations (NY, NJ, Cali, Illinois) that offset and cause our rates to greatly increase as a nation. These are the same states that feel the need to further regulate firearms because of the increased crime.

They blame it on people going out of state to buy firearms, but legally they more often than not can't as the state they live in has regulations on doing so and surrounding states have to follow that regulation. this is much the same as mexico blaming the USA on their firearms problem when the majority of the weapons down there used by the cartels are fully automatic which are prohibitively expensive here in the USA and nobody is going to give up their $10,000 or $20,000 AK or M-16 to go to the cartels. I know i have gotten slightly off the specific topic but it is in fact all related.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
There is really nothing to debate. The Second Amendment was SECOND because it protects the First Amendment.
It protects the very heart of the Constitution. The only way to get rid of the Second amendment is to get rid of the Constitution. Be very careful because the unintended consequences of that are horrendous.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey

Originally posted by phcaan

Originally posted by sparky31

Originally posted by VikingWarlord
reply to post by sparky31
 

I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand your post.
Please forgive me if English is not your primary language.






to u its not but least i can walk anywhere in my country and getting shot wudn,t even cross my mind.....bear
arms?no license to open fire on who u want is what it seems like


Really, I challenge you to take an evening walk in one of the many Muslim enclaves that exist in you wonderful country. Odds are that you wouldn't last 5 minutes. You may not be shot but being gutted with a knife has the same results.
Learn to spell and communicate properly and then maybe someone will take you seriously.
In the movie "Quigley down under" Quigley told a British solder that in America we got rid of all the troublemakers in our country, we sent them back to England.


Your knowledge of the UK is on a par with this guys grasp of the English language.

There are no 'enclaves' in his country, Muslim or otherwise.

I guess this is a debate for American's only as it seems to be an extremely contentious issue. I do wonder however why more pro-gun/2nd amendment American citizens do not aspire to have a country where there isn't a need to defend oneself?

Good luck.


As long as we remain human, there will always be a need to defend ones self. We need about another 1000 years in the proverbial evolutionary oven.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thank you for giving me a non emotional answer to all 4 questions. I was starting to lose hope. Of course The Miller case could be used against my premise but I try to remain as objective as possible or at least not censor information that would disadvantage me during argumentation. I will not deny that there is facts and statistics out there that prove that gun control is not the answer for the violence we are currently facing in America. On the other hand I will not deny that there is too, facts and statistics showing that it does indeed have a correlation.

Like Voltaire said...Never mind it has become too cliché for me to use it. But you know what I mean.
edit on 1-10-2012 by AdamLaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Sadly,nobody keeps up with the lives saved by guns.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Where I live , the average response time for the police is forty five minutes. If I need to defend myself I'm not going to get any help for quite awhile.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I would rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not be able to have it. Legal or not guns will never go away so i would want to be able to protect myself from the dumbasses who have no empathy for human life and think they can do whatever they want because they got their hands on a gun.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamLaw
 


Adam:

The 2nd Amendment refers to the PEOPLE being the MILITIA because without a standing army, WE are the ones who are going to have to defend the homeland from either foreign invasion or internal dissent.

Let's just say, for a moment, that you and your wife take the day off, decide to go eat at a restaurant somewhere, then go to the bank. At the bank, you both are inside and there is no security guard anywhere in sight. A bank robber walks in, puts his knife or gun to your wife's head and is threatening to kill her if you don't comply. Are you going to stand there, do what he says, or would you comply then pull out a gun that you had concealed and injure the guy for the cops to deal with. Let's face it, the COPS are not going to stop the guy. They are there to do something AFTER the crime has been committed. Without have a concealed carry permit and a firearm to go with it, the guy might have killed you and or your wife and gotten away with it.

Same situation but at home. You're sitting in your easy chair and a knock comes on the door. A weapon is pulled out and in your face. Money and jewelry is demanded. Your kids and wife are upstairs at home too. She has a conceal carry permit, carries a handgun and is able to use a rifle that you have at the top of the stairs. She hears the commotion downstairs, grabs the rifle and quickly puts the would be thief on the ground. The cops show up and haul them away. Your family is safe, your property is safe and you can rest peacefully that night knowing your wife did the right thing.

What part of all of this do you not understand ? Not having a gun, in most states, is a choice. In some, it's against the law for you not to have one. Are you such a WUSSY that you Can't or Won't defend yourself, your family and your property, or your city, county, state or country if need be ? Are you going to bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

The problem with you people on the LEFT who think that no one should be armed is, when someone attacks you in the real sense in the real world, you people are the one's crying and complaining that no one protected you, when all you had to do was protect yourselves. I will tell you this much. If things in this country ever fall apart, and eventually they will as history tends to repeat itself, I will not protect you and I will not come to your aide. You will be on your own. I can only wish you GOOD LUCK WITH THAT !

I am a USAF Veteran. I am a gun enthusiast. I believe in the US Constitution and BIll of Rights. 2nd Amendment means I can own firearms to protect myself, my family and my property with. It also means that I am part of the PEOPLE's MILITIA, all Citizens who have firearms, that can come to the defense of my city, county, state and country if need be. It also means that I can take up arms against TYRANNY if I so chose to.

GUNS - DO NOT MURDER OR KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL and or MURDER PEOPLE. A Gun is only a TOOL. A SWORD is only a TOOL. A BOMB is only a TOOL. All take PEOPLE to use them for mayhem.


edit on 10/1/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/1/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
For everyone that posted in this thread.

I refuse to believe that Americans are savages more inclined to violence than let say Canada, UK, Japan, China etc...

Yes we are leading in gun criminality and violence. But it is not because we are more violent as a nation. It is because we simply have amazingly easy access to guns.

For those who argue about the UK. the homicide rate in the US was more than 4 times higher than the murder rate in the UK in 2009. Our firearms homicide rate is over 40 times higher than that of England. We are not monsters we just have higher chances of becoming monsters with guns.

To say that the incredibly high homicide rate related to firearms is not related to firearms is to declare Americans violent and bloodthirsty savages. I refuse to believe that.

edit on 1-10-2012 by AdamLaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AdamLaw
 


2nd amendment was given to us, not so much for the security of a free state from foreign sources than domestic. We were given the right to bear arms with the fear of tyranny returning, and it is returning so the 2nd amendment is now needed more than ever.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
So you want us to give up our guns so we can be at the mercy of our government.. I don't think so, besides crack is illegal but guess what...it's so easy to get that little kids can get it, banning guns will be no different. so stop living in your liberal pipe dream world and face reality.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join